Apple demands US ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus

Apple is seeking a US ban on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus, the flagship phone for the newest iteration of Google's Android smartphone OS, in the latest battle of the ongoing patent wars. The fruity firm filed in California, saying that "a preliminary injunction regarding Samsung's new Galaxy Nexus, which infringes multiple key Apple …

[Anonymous Coward]

This'll get messy

Let's try and think what's gonna happen here

1) Lot's of slagging off of apple

2) Some defence - voted down

3) Wild confusion between copyright and patents

4) SOmeone will mention rounded corners

5) Some juvenile wil call them crApple - highly original and funny

6) Everyone will overlook anything that casts google in a bad light

7) The comments will descend to the intellectual equivalent of some of the lesser tech sites whose membership has an average of 20

Off you go. Have fun

[WonkoTheSane]

You forgot 8

8) Nobody wins but the lawyers.

[Ru]

"8) Nobody wins but the lawyers."

Please note also that the number of ad impressions the Reg gets will go up whilst this story is accruing fresh comments. Vultures do well by being on the sidelines of a good fight!

[fishman]

Too much credit

"7) The comments will descend to the intellectual equivalent of some of the lesser tech sites whose membership has an average of 20"

Average age of 20? I would have guessed 14.

[Anonymous Coward]

I assumed

It was an average IQ of 20. :-)

[Dave's Jubblies]

you forgot...

Barry Shitpeas storming in and blaming microsoft for it all....

[Gordon Fecyk]

That's my line!

This is somehow all Microsoft's fault... :-) They somehow started the software patent wars, and Apple and Samsung are just emulating them...

[mr1970]

A studious list but you missed out one obvious point - someone's contribution to the 2500 year old tradition of Socratic dialogue will be the use of the word "Fanboi".

[Johan Bastiaansen]

Fanboi

Fanboi is the new fascist, isn't it?

[Steve Knox]

Not a bad list, but...

"6) Everyone will overlook anything that casts google in a bad light"

Really? Have you actually read the comments about Google on these forums?

[Anonymous Coward]

Advanced preparation

You wrote that in advance, ready to pounce at the first instant of an Apple related story. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'd written it in dvance

There wouldn't have been so many typo's!

[Anonymous Coward]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

NOT again........................

[Bear Features]

You forgot to mention that people just roll their eyes at Apple's usual crap ;)

[Field Marshal Von Krakenfart]

5) Some juvenile wil call them crApple - highly original and funny

I usually call them that, glad you like it so much, thank you. Here’s a few more highly original and funny names:-

MickySoft, MicroShaft, Farcebook, haemoid phone, iFad, iPooed, iPhoney, MS Orifice (featuring Expel, Turd, Abscess and LookOut), eunuchs operating system, COBOL (Completely Outdated Boring Old Language) and the Vi(le) editor.

Oh hang on, the last one wasn’t a joke.

[Owen Carter]

Must be relying on the courts being full of fanbois.

"infringes on our patent... which recognises data such as phone numbers and provides a link directly to the dialler"

I had a black and white Nokia that did that 14 years ago. Patent denied. Next...

How thick does a fanboi have to be if they fall for this crap and really start to believe that Apple is the grand source of all innovation?

[ThomH]

@Owen

Your theory being that Apple are posturing as a form of advertising rather than merely exploiting the patent system for the questionable legal decisions others have been able to obtain?

[Giles Jones]

So you had email on your phone 14 years ago? I somehow doubt it. They're on about recognising things in emails and SMS also.

[fLaMePrOoF]

I think 14 years is a bit of an exaggeration, but yes; recognizing and dialer / hyper-linking URLs / phone numbers etc. in sms and emails is a feature that was available on several platforms (both smartphone and featurephone) long before Apple filed a patent on it.

Of course, Apple routinely ignore prior art and imagine everything they 're-invent' becomes original in some mysterious way, for example, remember the ads for 'facetime' - a bunch of cookie cutter Apple execs talking about how amazing and revolutionary this was, when in fact 3G video calling and video conferencing in general have been running video chat in this format for years, and Apple as usual brought up the rear and were pretty much last in line to give in and put a front facing camera on their phones...

Apple are not an innovator, they're a corporate and cultural cancer. Apple are to business what The Church of Scientology are to religion.

[Craigness]

Blackberry in '99?

I had this on my 2005 Treo, but apparently it was available on blackberries 10 years before this 2009 page...

http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=4575

Ironically, the page is Android users demanding the feature

[Owen Carter]

Nokia 6110 from mid 1997.

It was crude, the phone picked up on phone numbers in incoming messages and allowed you to list them, select one and call it if I'm not mistaken. I followed it with an 8210 which definitely had this feature (so I might be confused.. but I don't think so, IIRC the UI's were essentially the same).

As for email.. the first Nokia Communicators were out by then; I never used them but would not be surprised if they allowed you to create address book entries from the text in email and messages.

[Chika]

Oh come on, now. That's a bit strong!

Mind you, they did once claim to be the first company to put a RISC processor in a desktop. That was until Acorn called them on it!

OK, I might give you that...

[Ian Johnston]

Fifteen years ago, actually.

That's when I bought my truly excellent Nokia Communicator 9000.

[Tom 13]

@Giles: Pagers predate cell phones

and the early cells had to duplicate the pager functions. Once you have that, email is an obvious extension. Possibly difficult to implement, but still obvious.

[Jim Carter]

Not forgetting...

Voice search has been on my Android for the best part of two years now.

[Johan Bastiaansen]

a solution

what would put an end to this is, if these blatant frivoulous suits would result in real people doing real time behind real bars.

[Steve Todd]

Considering that the data tapping patent

was filed 16 years ago (1 Feb 1996) I don't think the Nokia counts as prior art. (U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647, go look it up yourself). Also the patent is about a METHOD of achieving this effect, not the effect it's self. It should be possible to create a method to do something similar that doesn't infringe (abet with reduced usability).

[NoneSuch]

"Even worse ... the full harm to Apple cannot be calculated, making it impossible for Apple to be compensated by money damages."

Legal speak for 'we might lose sales on one or two iPhones so better safe than sorry.'

Apples worse enemy is Apple. Is it me or are the number of lawsuits increasing since Mr. Jobs passed away? Whodathunk he was the brake keeping the lawyers from running free.

[g e]

Cannot be calculated

Damages are too small, insufficient decimal places.

Give them 1 cent.

[tmTM]

A little late?

If the case had any genuine merit surely they'd of filed it ages ago, in many country to stop the phone being released in the first place.

This seems like a desperate pathetic attempt with no hope in hell of success.

[Anonymous Coward]

The patents concerned were only granted in 2011

[Richard 81]

Then I call prior art.

[DRendar]

"If the case had any genuine merit surely they'd of filed it ages ago, in many country to stop the phone being released in the first place."

No.. They'd HAVE filed it ages ago.

[JDX]

Backfire on Apple?

Apple has massive share amongst young cool trendy people. I doubt that demographic is really in favour of corporate lawsuits, and so Apple could lose "cool points" if they become widely known for quashing competitors.

[Craigness]

Have you been on fanboy sites? Most of them seem to think apple invented the smartphone and everything a smartphone does. They don't even know that Apple is claiming other people's inventions or even that android is quite a bit different to Ios, they just think the other players are copycats.

[Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)]

Can I point out that...

Apple are coming over as their own worst enemy at the moment. Suing everyone in sight, whilst simultaneously whining that FRAND licencing agreements (which countless others have happily agreed to) shouldn't apply to them is making the entire company look like the spoiled brat in the supermarket screaming at the top of their voice because Mummy wont let them have a trolley load of sweets.

The worst part is that I really no longer care if Apples claims are valid. You simply cant go round complaining that the law shouldn't apply to you, whilst suing everyone else for the slightest thing.

And before everyone downvotes, please note that I've not said their claims aren't valid, just that I don't care. If you want to downvote on that basis, feel free.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post, like so many others, is false

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0249000/249997//mnt/rails_cache/https-ecf-wiwd-uscourts-gov-cgi-bin-show_doc-pl-caseid-29810-de_seq_num-329-dm_id-3602496-doc_num-93.pdf

Learn to research and learn to read

[Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)]

Mr Anonymous Coward, did you actually read that link you posted? Did you even bother to read the order? Because that is about Motorola applying to have Apples calls for exemption from FRAND dismissed (Dkt #33 in the document) and that application being upheld (page 38) since Apple don't have a valid claim for waiver. The document even states categorically "Plaintiff’s (Apple) claim of waiver is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted"

Care to post something less wrong?

[Craigness]

9) Anonytards will mostly be pro apple and will factually be wrong

[Steve Todd]

@Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT) - did you bother reading any of the preceding 37 pages?

The reason that the claim of waiver was dismissed was a technical one.

"I will deny Motorola’s motion to dismiss, with the exception of its motion to dismiss Apple’s claim of waiver because waiver is an affirmative defense, not a cause of action."

All other motions were ruled in Apple's favour.

[Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)]

@ Steve Todd - did you bother actually reading my initial post?

So what exactly did I say in my initial post that was so incorrect? Apple are whining that FRAND agreements shouldn't apply, and while Motorola may have behaved less than perfectly, THE FRAND AGREEMENT AS OF RIGHT NOW STILL APPLIES TO APPLE.

Jeez, I've seen Plankton which catch on quicker than Apple fans.

[Steve Todd]

@Rameses Niblic the Third (KKWWMT) - apparently there IS something in the world

more stupid than plankton, that would be you.

Apple raised a series of legal claims in a countersuit against MMI, saying not that they wanted to be free of FRAND, but that MMI were abusing FRAND comitments, that they were omitting to mention IP to standards bodies relevant to standards that they were partaking in (which they were subsequently declaring to be essential) and that they were withdrawing/revoking licences from chip manufacturers (in disregard of ETSI FRAND rules which require all licenses to be irrevocable) in order to try to force licensing terms on Apple that were different to the rest of the market. The judge ruled that Apple had valid cause (not that the case was proven, but that MMI needed to answer).

The ONLY point that the Judge sided with MMI over was the request for waiver (which is technically only usable as a defence plea, not when raising a suit) as a means of relief from MMIs actions. Apple are still free to seek huge damages if the court finds in their favour.

Now how on earth do you think that matches your claims?

[Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT)]

@Steve Todd - Matching claims

I already stated that Motorola have behaved less than perfectly, having said that, if they wish to withdraw licences from 3rd parties, (whilst not something I necessarily agree with) that's between them and the 3rd parties.

This raises the situation where Apple are required to licence things they previously didn't have to. Unfortunately, there is no specific calculation for FRAND, it being based on things such as degrees of importance and other such fuzzy issues, meaning that there is not a specific price noted.

Apple don't like it because they feel Motorola are trying to charge too much, and have appealed to the court for exemption.

Regardless of what else is in the document, as I said before, Apple are still bound to come to an agreement with Motorola over the use of their technology, and to say that it doesn't matter because that's the only claim upheld, or bemoan the fact it was upheld on a technicality is entirely wrong. It is in fact, as far as this discussion goes anyway, the ONLY part of the document which matters.

So yes, for my argument, I would say it entirely matches my claims.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with Mr. Todd

MMI have taken licenses away from licencees (not AAPL) who sell licenced products to APPL, but ONLY when the licenced products get sold to APPL.

This is discrimatory and I believe not allowed under the FRAND model rules. MMI have a case to aswer.

MMIs new proposed model of 2.5% of the handset price (rather than whatever the charge they get per chip from the chip manufacturer), for a single patent (of 100s or 1000s in a 3G phone) is patently (pun intended) ridiculous for a device that has thousands of patents involved in its construction.

If someone builds a GSM sender into a Rolls Royce, MMI gets 2.5% of the floor price of a RR ?

[Steve Todd]

@Rameses Niblick the Third (KKWWMT) - apparently lack of reading comprehension and memory

are among your flaws.

Your original post stated "whining that FRAND licencing agreements (which countless others have happily agreed to) shouldn't apply to them", but the legal filing stated that this was the precise opposite of what was on offer. The "countless others" get their licenses paid for in the cost of their base band chips. MMI want Apple to pay a completely different royalty based on the RRP of their devices. This doesn't meet the ND part of FRAND. It's completely unsurprising that Apple, having agreed to pay the cost of a licensed baseband chip, are upset that MMI have revoked that license and demanded a much higher rate.

Your next post, in response to the legal ruling PDF, claimed "Because that is about Motorola applying to have Apples calls for exemption from FRAND dismissed", which is again completely wrong. It's about Apple's claims that MMI had abused FRAND terms and tried to charge them an unreasonable licensing fee being found to be of sufficient merit to require trial. The ONLY thing it ruled out was the possibility of a free license as valid remedy of those alleged abuses.

Your final post made a bunch of stuff up. Nowhere else in this thread did you say "Motorola have behaved less than perfectly", to which you add "if they wish to withdraw licences from 3rd parties, (whilst not something I necessarily agree with) that's between them and the 3rd parties", which is actually in contravention of ETSI FRAND rules so it's not just between those two parties. Then you state "This raises the situation where Apple are required to licence things they previously didn't have to.", ignoring the fact that they didn't have to because they'd ALREADY paid for it (go look up patent exhaustion).

Non of this shows joined up thinking or understanding on your behalf of what Apple are claiming.

[Andrew Jones 2]

Since Australia

Since the quote Apple made in Australia "people who buy the Galaxy Tab are lost Apple customers that we may never get back" (or something along those lines) - it's painfully obvious that Apple is terrified (and rightly so) that people will regard the Android platform as being more powerful and useful than iOS is - and rather than fix what is broken with iOS - they would rather go for the easy option - wipe out the competition. I actually find it slightly sad but mostly worrying - that when Apple start copying Android (and others with cloud integration, notifications stored in a swipe down bar, "multitasking") suddenly the new OS is buggy and the acclaimed "magical" battery life that all iDevices apparently have - suddenly halves. Clearly not as talented as those Apple devs are proclaimed to be....... They want to be careful though - if their next iDevice release is nothing more than an upgrade - like the last one - they are really going to anger their fanbase.

As for this Patent war - Apple have become a bit too public with their hatred of Samsung - and it is clearly for more than just Android - losing court cases and then appealing and re-appealing is really coming across as "Apple throws toys out of pram".

It will be interesting to see what happens when (if) Google really do release a Google branded entertainment device - will Apple have the balls to sue Google directly instead of dancing around the topic suing everyone involved with Google?

[ThomH]

You're belying your own prejudices - the quote could equally be interpreted to mean that Apple don't expect anyone to buy two tablets at the same time and as a tacit admission that app stores are a form of platform lock-in.

There's nothing to justify putting the 'more powerful and useful' words into Apple's mouth.

[fLaMePrOoF]

In the contrary, it's you who's revealed a prejudice:

Most popular apps have versions on both platforms, the only real 'lock in' is Apple's walled (and electrified & razor wired) garden...

The Android platform and related services (with the partial exception of the Amazon Kindle Fire) makes little or no attempt to 'lock in' users with proprietary limitations and restrictions, but rather relies on the opposite approach of openness and choice to attract users.

Apple, on the other hand, operate almost exclusively in this way which makes any move from iOS to another platform WAY harder and less likely than a move from another platform to iOS. (Although admittedly the latter is mitigated by the fact that not many right thinking people, having tasted and enjoyed freedom, will march willingly into a jail cell.)

[ThomH]

@fLaMePrOoF

If I buy an Android device and purchase £25 worth of apps, then switch to an iPhone then I lose my apps. The fact that I could buy them again makes no difference. I'm not tied to any particular vendor and none of the companies on the Android side has put that limitation in place to serve its own interests but I am nevertheless locked in to the platform.

I can't see how that logic requires prejudice of thought.

[genericallyloud]

They don't fear better, they fear "good enough"

Merits of the respective OSes completely aside, I think its a valid point that new smartphone users are less likely to switch after they make a choice than they would be if they were not tied down. In today's smartphone market, there is quite a bit of incentive to stay with one platform. You can't bring your apps with you if you switch, and all of the data you have - contacts, calendar, etc. are more difficult to get set up on a different platform than to just upgrade.

I think the lawsuit is bullshit, and Apple isn't doing themselves any favors, but I don't think its because they fear a superior user experience with Android, they just fear momentum.

[The BigYin]

To the tune of "Oh My Darling Clementine"

Build a bonfire,

Build a bonfire,

Put the patents on the top,

Put lawyers in the middle,

Then burn the flippin' lot.

[BristolBachelor]

Indeed. In fact I am hoping that this whole silly mess just gets bigger and bigger until the countries of the world scream STOP! and sort out the mess that is IP law so that it is fit for what it was originally intended to do.

[Big_Ted]

Oh Dear

"four patents: predictive text; a data-tapper feature, which recognises data such as phone numbers and provides a link directly to the dialler, for example; a voice search feature that Apple believes is imitative of Siri; and the popular using-an-image-to-unlock feature"

So the nexus has the same features as all the other android smartphones have had for ages.

This is so lame, if there was any merit to this surely Apple would have sued for a block on all Android smartphones ages ago ?

Its obvious they are targeting Samsung as they see them as their biggest rival espcially in the untaped far east areas.

Big fat fail from me to Apple for looking desperate and for Samsung for doing the same back etc......

Lets make a new rule, a patent can only be issued for something that is a new idea, is provavble to work and unique when compared to the rest of the market, ie yes you can patent a 3D screen technology but only if you show me it working so I can agree its new and not patent an idea for a 3D screen as in the story http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/10/apple_patent_3d_user_interface/

[Charlie Clark]

Interesting

"Even worse ... the full harm to Apple cannot be calculated, making it impossible for Apple to be compensated by money damages."

This does somewhat beg the question of why go to court if the alleged damages are incalculable? How very naughty of Samsung to dare to use the same or similar components in their phones as they make for Apple.

As for the patents: I'm pretty sure they're all prior art. However, what are the chances of Apple being done for wasting the court's time with all these actions? At least it's more free publicity for Samsung.

[Big_Ted]

@ Charlie Clark

I agree re prior art, also it could backfir on Apple as people might ask themselves why buy an Apple device if the Android one is so similar unless you already have a big itunes library of stuff.

Why not go for the same thing with andoid and have the freedom to buy from anywhere......

[Cazzo Enorme]

@Big_Ted

Not sure why an iTunes library should be factored into someones choice of phone. I just switched from an iPhone to a Galaxy SII, and the transition was painless. Much to my surprise, iTunes supports exporting your contacts to a Google Mail account. As for music and videos, I just copied them straight over to an SD card that I had mounted in the Galaxy.

[Tech Hippy]

Erm..

"Samsung has simultaneously embarked on an advertising campaign designed to tarnish Apple and mock its consumers"

Bit rich considering the I'm a PC, I'm a Mac ads...

[g e]

Dear Sirs

To: 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, United States of Americaland

Yet again I am glad to be able to offer my assistance in your legal dealings.

Please find enclosed a Nokia 6230 from around 2001. I think you'll find it sufficient prior art.

Hugs,

Me.

P.S. shit, sorry, meant to send that to Samsung... my bad

Seriously, though, Apple should get all those patents invalidated from cursory examination of almost any Nokia from around 1999 onwards.

[g e]

Actually the Nokia 3310 will do

Available in 2000

Predictive text, voice tagging (hence it must search things on voice input) and you could select numbers in texts to do stuff with.

[Craigness]

The voice thing is actually to do with searching multiple sources at once and bringing the data back as a single response. Anyone using distributed databases (Facebook, Twitter, Oracle, Google etc) could be in trouble if this one gets upheld. It's a good one to highlight the absurdity of the software patent system.

[Matt Brigden]

This is getting tedious now

Dear Apple & Samsung ,

Please play nicely together there is only one ball so learn to share like nice little boys .

Sincerely

The Adults .

[fLaMePrOoF]

Frankly I'm getting fed up with all of the "Apple and Samsung need to play nice" posts.

The fact is, Apple are the aggressor, Apple are the litigious party, Apple are the (poorly attempted) patent troll...

I have every sympathy for Samsung who are taking hit after hit on behalf of all Android vendors simply because they are making the best, and best selling products.

OK, their move to block Apple on the basis of GSM patents wasn't perhaps their best move but understand that they were backed into a corner with few legal options, finding their valid challenges to ludicrous patents and 'look & feel' arguments by Apple being rejected in key court cases it was something of a last resort.

Personally I think they're recent ad campaign is a much better response and it's good to see that Apple's litigious strategy has back-fired in Europe and Australia sending Samsung sales souring! =OD

[fLaMePrOoF]

"they're recent ad campaign"?!!

Hangs own head in shame...

[Gregg Stuart]

Due for another post Jobs crash?

Nobody wins here but the lawyers but then again when you've got as much money as Apple, do they really care?

[Sarah Davis]

tell Apple,..

to STFU !!

What a whiny, petty, greedy, little dicked company they are. You wouldn't want to buy any of Apple's over-hyped over-priced stuff on principle

[Khaptain]

Lawyers are a happy bunch

I'm just waiting for the day that Apples lawyers find sufficient grounds for suing Apple.

Patent infringement : the iPhone 5g looked to much like the iphone 5.

[Rentaguru]

this follow on idea is rubbish my first smartphone was an iphone3 and it was so shite my second third and current ones were androids

[Cynical Observer]

MAD

"Samsung will have rushed the Galaxy Nexus, which misappropriates many patented features from the iPhone, to capture market share from Apple that Samsung will be able to retain long into the future"

And if we get the injunction, we can capture market share from Samsung that we will be able to retain long into the future - even if we lose the case.

Oh for a dream world where the judge says something along the lines of :

"Granting or refusing this injunction will unfairly disadvantage one or other of the parties. Therefore the only fair result to so ban both of you pillocks until we sort this out! Now why don't you both clear off out of my sight and come back when you want to behave like grown ups"

Ah well... back to the realities of a Monday afternoon.

[The Man Who Fell To Earth]

Oh, the irony!

Given that iPads are being removed from shelves all over Shijiazhuang (China) under due to Apple's violation of Shenzhen Proview Technology's trademarks. Shenzhen Proview Technology is a subsidiary of LCD screen maker Proview International Holdings Ltd., headquartered in Hong Kong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Global apparently excludes China

Apple actually paid them for Gloabl Rights.

They are subsequently claiming Global does not include China.

I have not read the contract, so I do not know, but this might be a case of Proview exploiting the home court advantage, expecting a judgement in their favour independent of what the contract says.

It is also clear that Apple already paid them a wedge of money for the name.

[Tony Paulazzo]

>However, what are the chances of Apple being done for wasting the court's time with all these actions?<

And therein lies the problem, shark lawyers getting fat, judges getting fat, everyone else going WTF? M.A.D.

[Andy Roid McUser]

I love this ..."Samsung has simultaneously embarked on an advertising campaign designed to tarnish Apple and mock its consumers for considering Apple's products distinctive and, for that reason, valuable," the fruity firm said"

Errmmm, Apple appear to have forgotten the "I'm a PC" ads, where they ridiculed Windows users as being fat, bloated , slow, uncool and stupid. Samsung are just employing the same tactic.

At a time when Apple are making incalculably large amounts of profit its a little rich that they attempt to crush any opposition. How un-cool can you get.

[Miffo]

Don't give them another idea!

They'll be suing them for their innovative - "Taking the mick out of the competitors in an advert." concept. We call it an iAdvert and we invited it. Thanks.

[MarcusMarcus2]

"While Samsung sells products copying features that make the iPhone distinct, Samsung has simultaneously embarked on an advertising campaign designed to tarnish Apple and mock its consumers for considering Apple's products distinctive and, for that reason, valuable,"

Apple really has a point here. What company would sink as low as making an ad that would mock their competition and their user base by comparing it to their-selves and their own user base.....Wait......wasn't there some computer company in the past that did the same thing with Microsoft......Can't remember who it was.......Can someone help me out with this......Darn, won't be able to sleep until I can remember this.

[Ripperroo]

Wrong target?

as far as I can see they have the wrong target as the patients listed are software features not hardware, when the features they are suing for spring from the OS why are they not trying to get the courts to prevent its release instead of the phones ?

if Apple wants to really screw Google they should port the iPhone/iPad OS to run in place of Android and sell it to smartphone users as Microsoft has been selling Windows to people for years. just think of all those extra customers for their app store!

[Anonymous Coward]

W O W Apple, Same sh te, different day! Break the record will ya?

Yes, we know your product is poor. Yes, we know that once a punter buys a nexus, they'll continue to laugh loudly at Apple carriers and those (snigger) "Young, cool and trendy" types!

Maybe you should offer something better? iPhone *was* good, 6 years ago. It's not any more, get over it and move on with the rest of the world!

[Toothpick]

You forgot 9...

... Someone will mention "Fondleslab"

[DJV]

@Toothpick

Agreed, but you forgot how to use the "Reply" button :)

[Doug Glass]

What a frakking ...

... relief. Wife and I just shit-canned our smart phones and now have only voice and texting dumbass devices. So happy ... so happy. As with retirement we should have done this years ago.

[squilookle]

Hehe

""Samsung has simultaneously embarked on an advertising campaign designed to tarnish Apple and mock its consumers for considering Apple's products distinctive and, for that reason, valuable," the fruity firm said."

Erm... do Apple not have a tradition of doing the same? "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC", perhaps even that first Big Brother ad for the Mac?

IIRC, MS tried to turn it into a positive with their ads to follow it up. Those ads were crap, but it was more positive than crying like a baby to the courts.*

*MS may have cried like a baby beforehand, but I don't remember it if they did.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac/PC ads

Also, in America those Mac/PC adverts were a lot more cutting and personal than in the UK, they were clearly suggesting that the two people in them were Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Steve was presented as cool and hip, while Bill was presented as a nerd who could barely function. It was pretty unpleasant and I'm surprised that they lasted as long as they did over there, considering how quickly they disappeared in the UK.

[Dotter]

Irreparable Harm

I'm waiting for Apple to use this as a reason to sue every other phone manufacturer as anyone who isn't buying an Apple product is harming their sales.

[Kay Burley ate my hamster]

Fuck Apple

They are using a corrupt patent system that grants patents regardless of prior art and they need to be controlled. End of.

[ratfox]

Unlock by image??

Don't tell me this is patented, and Google missed it!?

[garyc2011]

but

I cant see this patent standing up

A touchscreen device called neonode was doing this before apple = prior art....

Google it, or theres a video on youtube.

My garden gate has "slide to unlock" since wayyyy back also :D

[Graham Marsden]

"Samsung sells products copying features that make the iPhone distinct"

And, of course, the iPhone contains *nothing* which is blatantly Prior Art based on technologies and ideas which have been knocking around for years yet which, due to the unconscionable failings of the USPO, have been granted to Apple as "original" patents.

[ThatGuy]

but but but... PRIOR ART

As has been mentioned, I have seen all these features before, on Nokia devices of old.

Please someone explain to me (seriously, I would really like to know) how Apple is able to apply for this injunction with this in mind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably

They've probably got the injunction based on it not having been proven in court that there is prior art. If a patent has been granted and it is thought that there is prior art, this has to be tested in court.

[Craigness]

Does apple operate in a bubble? Do the patent people? Why would anyone either apply for or grant a patent on a technology which everyone's been using for years?

[g e]

Good point

A bit like the MAFIAA expecting entertainment sales to skyrocket if they kill all downloading somehow.Pure fantasy.

They are, however preventing people seeing how superior competitor's devices are, to some extent, therefore stifling competition.

[Nick De Plume]

irreperable harm?

The only irreperable harm I saw was two iphone4's who met untimely demises upon contact with the ground (in the last two months, I saw these happen, on two seperate occasions, one with a cracked back, one with a shattered screen).

With a bumper iphone4 is no longer sexy. Bareback it's fragile.

it may not get the ice cream sandwich, but it is a glass sandwich, around a very dated UI.

Anyway. iphone may be fluid and simple, but the grid of icons is getting long in the tooth. It's basically the same as the Palm III I used to have ages ago. Apple needs to innovate rather than litigate.

[Watashi]

9) Capitalism is dead

9) Someone will bemoan the lack of free markets in Western Capitalism, suggest that the Patent system is biased towards American companies and then imply that Apple is inhibiting, rather than promoting, innovation in the tablet and smartphone biz. He will then wonder how Google is ever going to monetarize Android anyway. Finally, he will say that this whole thing just shows that we've learned nothing from the Credit Crunch.

[Keep Refrigerated]

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, just one more thing...

<blockquote>"a preliminary injunction regarding Samsung's new Galaxy Nexus, which infringes multiple key Apple patents, is essential to prevent immediate and irreparable harm to Apple".</blockquote>

FFS, I know patents are there for the inventor, but at least pretend that you give a shit about the consumer. I mean Apple really is the conspiracy theorist here, because to them average consumers are a sheeple, who walk into phone shops and simply buy what's nearest on the shelf. Ergo, if Apple can prevent as many competitors as possible from filling the shelves, there's more likelihood that the sheeperson will walk out with an iPhone.

<blockquote>"Even worse ... the full harm to Apple cannot be calculated, making it impossible for Apple to be compensated by money damages."</blockquote>

If 'the full harm' cannot be calculated, then can you really claim there is any harm at all? Or in other words if a Samsung pushed an (apple) tree over in the forest, would Samsung then owe Apple a tree, an orchard or a forest full of trees?

<blockquote>"While Samsung sells products copying features that make the iPhone distinct, Samsung has simultaneously embarked on an advertising campaign designed to tarnish Apple and mock its consumers for considering Apple's products distinctive and, for that reason, valuable,"</blockquote>

Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. I rest my case.

[scarshapedstar]

Oh fuck off already

"a voice search feature that Apple believes is imitative of Siri"

Android had voice search years before Siri. What a joke.

[Darryl]

The tide seems to be slowly turning

Read this on another site on the weekend and all of the comments were along the lines of "Fuck off, Apple. Get over yourselves and go produce something other than lawsuits!"

Seeing the same thing here pretty much. A year ago, this forum would probably be about half comments like the one above and half "Everybody copies Apple because Apple invented everything"... Now maybe one or two pro-Apple and the rest against.

I wonder if any Apple higher-ups are noticing that there is a larger number of people getting fed up with this BS. You'd think that would do more "irreparable damage"

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is worried about copyrights. No one is considering if Apple wins in this war against Android, they will have a total monopoly in the smart phone and tablet field. This will make it so that the consumer will have no choices but to take whatever Apple doles out to them. Think like slow fixing of problems, privacy concerns, batteries that only last 45 seconds, passwords that can be cracked in 5 seconds will have a lower priority with Apple than they do now. Before you condemn what I say, just remember that monopolies have never been good for people. They will have total control over your life. Competition between products is the only think that makes products better. If a Iphone's battery blows up in an air plane, Apple is concerned only about two things, being sued, losing their customer base to Android. With Android out of the way, Apple will have no fear about doing exactly what is good for Apple, and totally ignore their consumer.

[Anonymous Coward]

"total monopoly"

What a moronic statement.

There are plenty of alternatives available to handset manufacturers

Samsung has Bada (and probably other inhouse things)

Nokia has Meego or whatever the variant is called that they *could* continue to use.

Nokia has Symnbian but buried it to fly with WindowsPhone

Anyone can make a Linux based phone, and do a better job than Android if they want. The reason that so many jumped on the Android bandwagon is that the manufacturers get it for free from Google, who give it away in order to have a zillion war-driving android phones out there vacuuming data, and providing a delivery platform for Google's primary product - Advertisements.

Microsoft is a non-trivial player with a minuscule market penetration, but who knows what fickle consumers might decide?

The liklihood of Apple having anywhere near approaching a monopoly is specious

[Anonymous Coward]

"The reason that so many jumped on the Android bandwagon is that the manufacturers get it for free from Google, who give it away..."

I was under the impression that Android (the OS) is free and open source, but the manufacturers have to license the Android name and Google Apps software from Google. Otherwise they can't use the Android name or Market/Gmail/Maps etc.

[garyc2011]

"While Samsung sells products copying features that make the iPhone distinct, Samsung has simultaneously embarked on an advertising campaign designed to tarnish Apple and mock its consumers for considering Apple's products distinctive and, for that reason, valuable,""

This is beyond insane............................................

This crap has made me swear that my (now out of contract) 3gs will be my last apple product......

The thing that really gets me is jobs said he would spend Apples $40Bn cash to "right this wrong" is the same guy who also said "Apple has always been shameless about stealing the best ideas out there" and good artists copy, great artists steal.

Then there was that time when Bill gates said he broke into Xerox's house to steal their TV to find apple had already been in and stolen it.

[heyrick]

" the full harm to Apple cannot be calculated"

Try $0

Actually, the cost is your legal shenanigans, and you won't know the cost until yet another round of this nonsense is kicked out of court.

Plus, may I suggest a concept of "vexatious litigant", meaning Samsung has *no* obligation (FRAND or otherwise) to deal with a company that tries to go after them on a near-weekly basis...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple smoke and mirrors

It's been said ^^^ up there in the comments.

You can trace back a whole lot of these claims by Apple of patent infringement and discover the ideas existed well before Apple claimed to have put patents on them.

I hope Apple lose this, because should they win, it threatens future innovation to a massive degree.

I hold no love toward Samsung - they are just as full on 'take no prisoners' as Apple are and would do the same in return - but someone needs to try to break this patently ridiculous patent debacle. ( you saw what I did there? )

[bfeist]

That's rich

Apple is complaining about the negative advertising of Samsung? How quickly they forget that for YEARS they ran negative ads against the PC. I guess they don't like being the new Microsoft.

[Comments are attributed to your handle]

No way!

"...a data-tapper feature, which recognises data such as phone numbers and provides a link directly to the dialler..."

Apple created regular expressions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No way!

...and hyperlinks: "and provides a link directly to the dialler"

[BitDr]

Where to start...

IMHO the full harm can not be calculated simply because there isn't any harm. Apple's focus on making great products is slipping into focus on creating a monopoly through litigation. Mr. Jobs knew full well that if you build it correctly then it will sell.

Predictive text. Statistical analysis of a language to predict possible next words in a sentence? The human animal has been annoying each other for generations by intuitively doing this in conversations. Imagine if SIRI tried vocalizing possible next word-choices, that would be really annoying. The only difference here is that you see the choice instead of hearing it.

Voice recognition is an interface. It could be an interface to any application into which you would normally type. See the works of Gene Roddenberry and Arthur C. Clarke for examples. Tech has finally caught up to fiction, rendering it non-fiction.

Using a follower strategy. Some lead, others follow. Those tired of the race focus on protecting the status quo. Xerox had the technology but not the leadership, Apple had the leadership but not the technology, and MS had the savy to let others break-trail and then,... er... become a great artist, not a good artist. Apple might win battles, but ultimately this is a war they will lose. Lessons from the past need to be heeded.

That an OS difficult to switch from is not true when it comes to going from an open (Linux, FreeBSD, Android) to a closed (Apple, Microsoft) system. The information required to create tools to port data from the Android platform to the Apple platform is readily available. Can this be said for those wishing to create tools to migrate from Apple to Android? Where is the problem exactly?

Advertising tactics that poke fun at the fanbois. For examples of Apple doing this to their competition go to you tube and search for Apple advertisements. Apple has been poking fun at and attempting to tarnish their competition in a similar manner for YEARS! Suck it up!

[Hans 1]

Advertising tactics that poke fun at the fanbois. For examples of Apple doing this to their competition go to you tube and search for Apple advertisements. Apple has been poking fun at and attempting to tarnish their competition in a similar manner for YEARS! Suck it up!

Yes, but they never built grey boxes that looked exactly like Compaq's, Dell's or HP's ...

Sorry!

[BitDr]

Berige Box Macs...

Hans 1: Yes, but they never built grey boxes that looked exactly like Compaq's, Dell's or HP's ...

Umm yes they certainly did. But the 'boxes' were beige, not grey. Have a look here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/06/steve_jobs_bio_1/page11.html

or search Google images for Apple LC 630, MacIntosh II, Mac Performa, Performa 550, 560, 6220, 6400 etc. All beige boxes, all look like any other PC of the day (The Performa 575 actually looks like a model Compaq built with the floppy & CD in the big-beige monitor... can't remember the model).

Anyway, yes they certainly did. Creations that Jonny Ives would never promote. Uninspired designs that crept in while Jobs was away in the pre-iMac days.

[Semaj]

End Game of Patent Wars

No company releases any electronic product in the west. Unauthorized imports and clones soar.

Everyone gets access to fewer cool gizmos, companies make less money. Everyone loses.

[Hans 1]

Care for some history?

So, lets take this whole smartphone business back a few years ...

We have been waiting and waiting for iPhone killers, every new smartphone that came out at the time got dismissed by the press and users.

Now, they have all copied iphone to the pixel, I can no longer tell which is which from a plain photo, if I blacken out the brand. Remember, back then, smartphones all looked like Blackberries, now, they all look like iphones.

You can argue all you want, this is Apple vs soviets, Tu-144 style.

And don't get me started on tabs, they have been around in different form factors for over 10 years, yet, only Apple's design made a dent in PC sales, and see the same fate. The competitor's devices all look the same.

Apple present a crappy defense, have a whack of invalid patents, have merged several known technologies into new technologies and patented the result, lock users in (although iTunes songs play on any device, now), have more lawyers than developers, agreed, but still, their innovations have been used by everyone.

I'll get an Android phone, because it is just like an iphone, and lets me chose my own music (I play and record my music) for my alarm.

[sT0rNG b4R3 duRiD]

What a load of ...

... bollocks...

And I'm not just referring to the Apple <-> Samsung war :P

[indulis]

How to easily build a patent portfolio

To build a great patent portfolio, just look for established ideas, or patents, then just add "on a mobile device" to it.

Many of the patents for mobile devices seem to be just stuff that is either designed into the underlying technology (patent for multitouch user interface = patent for being able to turn steering wheel to the left), or just an implementation of stuff that is commonplace in other devices.

Patent courts don't seem to understand that doing the same thing on a mobile device that is done on a desktop computer is not novel, nor should it be patentable- for example if something is done using a network protocol it does not matter if it is done wireless, via GSM, via a phone, or via carrier pigeon (IETF RFC1149 and RFC2549).

The design copyrights are similarly ludicrous. Most cars look similar because they use similar components and have to do the same thing. Phones look similar for the same reason. Most TVs look amazingly similar as well. Sharks and porpoises evolved and look similar because they occupy similar ecological niches. So do manufactured devices. To force a company to deliberately mangle a design and add frippery and geegaws because "it is too similar in look" is ridiculous.

More up-front scrutiny before a patent or copyright is issued could save courts and citizens from the cost and pain of squabbling corporations trying to keep competitors frozen out of a market.

Lets remember that the whole point of copyrights and patents was NOT to provide a guaranteed never ending profit stream for the owner, it was to promote the advancement of art and science for society (ah, I fondly remember when we had a society not just an economy).Read Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" (free e-book) for a look at the world where a woman gets sued for having a commercial song playing in the background of her YouTube video of a baby dancing. This is the same litigousness that we see int he Apple/Samsung playground bullying.